3 ms·
> I cannot see a world in which use of NSO tech is legitimate. Get a court order to tap the phone line, etc. In general, I am against government overreach, so
by kshacker 5y ago
> I cannot see a world in which use of NSO tech is legitimate. Get a court order to tap the phone line, etc.
In general, I am against government overreach, so I agree with a lot of what you said.
However, let us say I have a court order to surveil person X - how am I ever going to get all the information when they could be communicating via a phone call, SMS, iMessage, whatsapp, gmail, facebook messenger, signal, telegram, discord and a myriad of other mechanisms with a myriad of identities. The easiest solution for me (the snooper) would be to surveil your entire phone, including click history and screenshots when feasible. No?
Once again, let us forget the person side for a minute. Let us talk about someone with genuine need to surveil. How will ever do it with today's technology? It aint easy.
- filoeleven 5y agoHalf of those services will happily share all of that person’s data when handed a warrant. Some don’t even require that much. On the flipside, a snooper will always have to do a monumental and maybe impossible amount of work to break a one-time pad by chipping away at the security that surrounds it. What makes security tech fundamentally different? Why should it be easy to break? A warrant lets someone search my belongings; it does not compel me to give law enforcement the information they are seeking.
- dotancohen 5y ago> A warrant lets someone search my belongings; it does not compel me > to give law enforcement the information they are seeking. This is the issue. An investigator's limited permission to search a specific aspect of one's belongings does not infringe upon one's right to be secure in the remainder of his belongings. At least, not in the context of nations which have explicitly granted that right.